Zell Miller's farewell

[HopsGuy]

In case you hadn't seen this...

 

 

 

MY VIEW

 

I tried to tell you . . .

Democrats repel voters, who put faith in freedom

 

Published on: 11/04/04

 

 

America's faith in freedom has been reaffirmed. With the re-election of President Bush, America recommitted itself once again to expanding freedom and promoting liberty. Only the 1864 re-election of Abraham Lincoln, the 1944 re-election of Franklin Roosevelt and the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan rival this victory as milestones in the preservation of our security by the advancement of freedom.

 

This election validated not just freedom, but also the faith our Founding Fathers placed in average folks to navigate the course of this great nation. By weighing the greatest issues at the gravest times and choosing our path, ordinary people have again accomplished extraordinary things. With courage and caution, rather than fear and timidity, the voters chose a path to ensure others would enjoy the same freedom to set their own path.

 

This election outcome should have been implausible, if not impossible. With a litany of complaints — bad economy, bad deficit, bad foreign war, bad gas prices

— amplified by a national media that discarded any pretense of neutrality, a national opposition party should have won this election.

 

But the Democratic Party is no longer a national party. As difficult as the challenges are — both real and fabricated — Democrats offered no solution that was either believable or acceptable to vast regions of America.

 

Tax increases to grow the economy are not a solution that is believable or acceptable. Democratic promises of fiscal responsibility are unbelievable in the face of massive new spending promises. A foreign policy based on the strength of "allies" such as France is unacceptable. A strong national defense policy is just not believable coming from a candidate who built a career as an anti-war veteran, an anti-military candidate and an anti-action senator.

 

Democratic Party policies haven't sold in large sections of America in decades, and the only success of Democrats in presidential elections for 40 years was when they pitched themselves as pro-growth, low-tax, strong-defense, fiscally responsible, values-oriented candidates.

 

Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton hummed the tune but never really sang the song, and that's why Democrat prospects have gone south in the South. In 1980, the South had 20 Democrats and just six Republicans in the Senate. As recently as 1994, the Senate had 17 Democrats and nine Republicans from the South.

 

A decade later, the number had reversed to 17 Republicans and nine Democrats. With this election, it is 22 Republicans and just four Democrats from the South.

 

When will national Democrats sober up and admit that that dog won't hunt? Secular socialism, heavy taxes, big spending, weak defense, limitless lawsuits and heavy regulation — that pack of beagles hasn't caught a rabbit in the South or Midwest in years.

 

The most recent failed nominee for president stands as proof that the national Democratic Party will continue to dwindle. The South has gone from just one-fourth of the Electoral College in 1960 to almost a third today.

 

To put this in perspective, that gain is equal to all the electoral votes in Ohio. Yet there was not a single Southern state where John Kerry had any real chance. Would anyone like to place bets on the electoral strength of the South by 2012? Maybe they should tax stupidity.

 

When you write off centrist and conservative policies that reflect the will of people in the South and Midwest, you write off the South and Midwest. Democrats have never learned from the second or third or fifth kick of a mule. They continue to change only the makeup on, rather than makeup of, the Democrat Party.

 

And so we have a realignment election. For the first time, in an "us vs. them" election and in the toughest of situations, Republicans have been re-elected to the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives.

 

Confronting an opposition that can win a divided electorate in the worst of times and that has a growing electoral base, the national Democratic Party has a choice: continue down this path toward irrelevance or reverse course. As the last Truman

Democrat, I hope my party makes the right choice but know I will not be allowed to be part of it. Such is the price you pay when you love your nation more than your party.

 

And so while I retire with little hope for the near-term viability of the party I've spent my life building, I retire with a quiet satisfaction that after witnessing the struggle of democracy over communism and fascism, the fear I once held that America might not rise to meet this new challenge of terrorism has vanished like a fog under the radiance of a new dawn. While the threat is still real, the shadow looming across a promising future is gone.

 

And the credit for that goes to one man. Like the last lion of England, Winston Churchill, George W. Bush has stood alone and risked all to give the world a new, clearer path to the advancement of freedom.

 

Abraham Lincoln, in his second annual message to Congress, stated: "In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom for the free — honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve. We shall nobly save or meanly lose the last, best hope of earth."

 

George Bush has injected into a region of enslavement an incurable dose of freedom, and thus nobly saved that "last, best hope of earth" — free men.

 

 

— Zell Miller is Georgia's Democratic U.S. senator.

[Rich in Ohio]

In case you hadn't seen this...

MY VIEW

 

I tried to tell you . . .

Democrats repel voters, who put faith in freedom

 

Published on: 11/04/04

America's faith in freedom has been reaffirmed. With the re-election of President Bush, America recommitted itself once again to expanding freedom and promoting liberty. Only the 1864 re-election of Abraham Lincoln, the 1944 re-election of Franklin Roosevelt and the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan rival this victory as milestones in the preservation of our security by the advancement of freedom.

 

This election validated not just freedom, but also the faith our Founding Fathers placed in average folks to navigate the course of this great nation. By weighing the greatest issues at the gravest times and choosing our path, ordinary people have again accomplished extraordinary things. With courage and caution, rather than fear and timidity, the voters chose a path to ensure others would enjoy the same freedom to set their own path.

 

This election outcome should have been implausible, if not impossible. With a litany of complaints — bad economy, bad deficit, bad foreign war, bad gas prices

— amplified by a national media that discarded any pretense of neutrality, a national opposition party should have won this election.

 

But the Democratic Party is no longer a national party. As difficult as the challenges are — both real and fabricated — Democrats offered no solution that was either believable or acceptable to vast regions of America.

 

Tax increases to grow the economy are not a solution that is believable or acceptable. Democratic promises of fiscal responsibility are unbelievable in the face of massive new spending promises. A foreign policy based on the strength of "allies" such as France is unacceptable. A strong national defense policy is just not believable coming from a candidate who built a career as an anti-war veteran, an anti-military candidate and an anti-action senator.

 

Democratic Party policies haven't sold in large sections of America in decades, and the only success of Democrats in presidential elections for 40 years was when they pitched themselves as pro-growth, low-tax, strong-defense, fiscally responsible, values-oriented candidates.

 

Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton hummed the tune but never really sang the song, and that's why Democrat prospects have gone south in the South. In 1980, the South had 20 Democrats and just six Republicans in the Senate. As recently as 1994, the Senate had 17 Democrats and nine Republicans from the South.

 

A decade later, the number had reversed to 17 Republicans and nine Democrats. With this election, it is 22 Republicans and just four Democrats from the South.

 

When will national Democrats sober up and admit that that dog won't hunt? Secular socialism, heavy taxes, big spending, weak defense, limitless lawsuits and heavy regulation — that pack of beagles hasn't caught a rabbit in the South or Midwest in years.

 

The most recent failed nominee for president stands as proof that the national Democratic Party will continue to dwindle. The South has gone from just one-fourth of the Electoral College in 1960 to almost a third today.

 

To put this in perspective, that gain is equal to all the electoral votes in Ohio. Yet there was not a single Southern state where John Kerry had any real chance. Would anyone like to place bets on the electoral strength of the South by 2012? Maybe they should tax stupidity.

 

When you write off centrist and conservative policies that reflect the will of people in the South and Midwest, you write off the South and Midwest. Democrats have never learned from the second or third or fifth kick of a mule. They continue to change only the makeup on, rather than makeup of, the Democrat Party.

 

And so we have a realignment election. For the first time, in an "us vs. them" election and in the toughest of situations, Republicans have been re-elected to the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives.

 

Confronting an opposition that can win a divided electorate in the worst of times and that has a growing electoral base, the national Democratic Party has a choice: continue down this path toward irrelevance or reverse course. As the last Truman

Democrat, I hope my party makes the right choice but know I will not be allowed to be part of it. Such is the price you pay when you love your nation more than your party.

 

And so while I retire with little hope for the near-term viability of the party I've spent my life building, I retire with a quiet satisfaction that after witnessing the struggle of democracy over communism and fascism, the fear I once held that America might not rise to meet this new challenge of terrorism has vanished like a fog under the radiance of a new dawn. While the threat is still real, the shadow looming across a promising future is gone.

 

And the credit for that goes to one man. Like the last lion of England, Winston Churchill, George W. Bush has stood alone and risked all to give the world a new, clearer path to the advancement of freedom.

 

Abraham Lincoln, in his second annual message to Congress, stated: "In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom for the free — honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve. We shall nobly save or meanly lose the last, best hope of earth."

 

George Bush has injected into a region of enslavement an incurable dose of freedom, and thus nobly saved that "last, best hope of earth" — free men.

— Zell Miller is Georgia's Democratic U.S. senator.

101388[/snapback]

 

Thank you for posting that.

[JimBob2232]

I love Zell. Too bad he left the senate. He will be missed.

[boomerjamhead]

Thank you for posting that.

101410[/snapback]

 

I love how he closes with the Lincoln reference.

[Alaska Darin]

Zell is making entirely too much sense. That's probably why he left his party.

[/dev/null]

Zell is making entirely too much sense.  That's probably why he left his party.

101477[/snapback]

 

kind of like reagan in that he didn't leave the democratic party. the democratic party left him

[PastaJoe]

There's going to be a vacuum in the wing of the Democratic party that advocates making dueling legal again.

[KOKBILLS]

Zell is making entirely too much sense.  That's probably why he left his party.

101477[/snapback]

 

I doubt the lesson will be learned on the Left, but I think Dems like Miller who put sound thinking before Politics are their only chance as a Party...

 

I know I may be in the minority, but it seemed to me as soon as the Dems and Kerry decided to let the policies of the far left like Dean creep into their Platform, they were billsfanone...

 

Might just be me though... B)

[JimBob2232]

This is another one of my favorite zell pieces circa 2001/2002. Check out is website before it goes down http://miller.senate.gov/index.htm for more. I also recommend his book "A national pary no more"

 

The Beltway Diet

By Zell Miller

(As appeared in The Wall Street Journal)

 

Let's see now. What bountiful feasts do we have spread before us in this tax-cut debate? There's the filet mignon and baked Alaska on the white tablecloth of the Republicans. There's the burgers and brownies on the limp paper plates of the Democrats. But there's something missing from both these enticing meals. Where's the spinach? Where's the sacrifice?

 

 

Both parties want Congress to do what we've always done: Scarf up their feast, belch loudly and say, "Charge it" as we get up from the table.

 

 

When I was growing up without a father in the hard scrapple of Appalachia, my mother used to tell my sister and me, "Take what you want, sayeth the Lord; take it and pay for it." I was a grown man before I realized that is not in the Bible. It was just my mother's scripture. It also is one the truest laws of life: You can have anything in life, but you must pay for it. Here in Washington, that rule has been twisted into: You can have anything in life, and someone else will pay for it.

 

 

There's no one on this Hill or in this country who likes tax cuts more than I do. I've never seen one too big for me to swallow without water. I'd even be willing to pass both the president's plan and the Democrats' plan -- as long as we were willing to cut federal spending at the same time. I just firmly believe that government takes too much from our taxpayers -- big and little alike.

 

 

So, as both parties spoon those delicious tax cuts onto our plates, let's save room for the spinach. Let's suck in our gut, tighten our belts and spend these precious tax dollars only on what's really important.

 

 

Unfortunately, in this citadel of "champagne wishes and caviar dreams," there is hardly ever any talk -- much less, action -- on cutting spending. It's often mentioned on the campaign trail, but amnesia strikes as soon as the candidates win and get inside the Beltway. And then, each year, as sure as the swallows return to Capistrano, every federal program that the mindof man, woman and K Street can conceive finds its way into the budget and settles into a permanent home. Not for just a day, or a year, but forever.

 

 

I think it's time to turn up the volume on the theme from "The Bridge on the River Kwai" and begin a forced march to reality. In this time of competing tax cuts, we ought to remember why the people don't like taxes in the first place. When I was a boy growing up in the tiny town of Young Harris, my mama was the mayor and folks came to our house to pay their taxes. And I remember hearing them grumble each time when they turned over their hard-earned dollars. What it taught me was that people don't complain about taxes because they are selfish or stingy. They complain because they simply don't believe they're getting their money's worth.

 

 

No one has ever spoken about taxes more eloquently than that great patriot Thomas Paine: "It is not the produce of riches only, but of hard earnings of labor and poverty. It is drawn even from the bitterness of want and misery."

 

 

Congress forgets all too often that there is no such thing as "government money." There is only "taxpayers' money." I got into government because I've always believed that government can help people. But good government doesn't mean big government. Good government means providing basic services efficiently. Good government means not just asking how to make a program more efficient, but asking what would happen if we got rid of the program entirely. Why waste time making something more efficient if we don't need it? There's a whole herd of sacred cows grazing in the lush green pastures of the federal government. Even though many of them quit giving milk long ago, we still fund them. I say take 'em out and shoot 'em.

 

 

It's no secret that I like this president. He's the right man and I want to support him. But federal spending has gone wild and someone must take the lead in stopping it. Most functions of government grew by at least 5% a year for each of the last four years. Some grew by twice that much. That's got to stop.

 

 

We now have the biggest, most expensive federal government in history. Federal employees are thicker than maggots on a rotting carcass. So, why not start by abolishing vacant positions in every department except Defense and Homeland Security? Congress could set the example by cutting our own staff to show that we are willing to stop feeding the hungry beast.

 

 

When it comes to out-of-control federal spending, you don't find many members of Congress who have made it a high priority. In the Senate, there's John McCain and the pork projects he ridicules; there's George Voinovich, Russ Feingold, Judd Gregg; there's Larry Craig with his balanced budget amendment. That's not even enough for a baseball team. And yes, I'm guilty of not supporting them as I should have.

 

 

It's been said the Democrats blame the deficit on Republican tax cuts and the Republicans blame the deficits on the Democrats' social programs. And as long as they can blame each other, they will never solve the problem.

 

 

So, we need that tax-cutting Texan to also become a budget-cutting president. We need more members of Congress to decide that now is the time to cut taxes and at the same time tighten our belt. It's simple: Collect fewer dollars; spend fewer dollars. In the '80s and '90s, we "drank that free bubble up and ate that rainbow stew," as Merle Haggard sings. Now, it's time to go on a diet.

 

 

Mr. Miller is a Democratic senator from Georgia.

[Buftex]

I love Zell.  Too bad he left the senate.  He will be missed.

101456[/snapback]

 

Did you even know who he was before the RNC?

[JimBob2232]

Did you even know who he was before the RNC?

 

Oh, i absolutley did. I have been watching this guy for years. I actually have that beltway diet story i just posted cutout from the wall street journal. He is a true patriot.

[SD Jarhead]

Thanks to both of you for posting those...Miller hit the nail on the head in both essays.

[PastaJoe]

So, we need that tax-cutting Texan to also become a budget-cutting president. We need more members of Congress to decide that now is the time to cut taxes and at the same time tighten our belt. It's simple: Collect fewer dollars; spend fewer dollars. In the '80s and '90s, we "drank that free bubble up and ate that rainbow stew," as Merle Haggard sings. Now, it's time to go on a diet.

 

Given this Congress' last few trips to the trough, I expect we'll see the tax cuts but not the spending reductions. Especially since Bush didn't veto any of the spending increases in his first term.

[blzrul]

What happened? All the old southern racists went over the GOP. Zell Miller is a remnant of an era that is best forgotten. He's always put me in mind of George Wallace.

[SD Jarhead]

What happened?  All the old southern racists went over the GOP.  Zell Miller is a remnant of an era that is best forgotten.   He's always put me in mind of George Wallace.

101886[/snapback]

 

Typical leftist stevestojan. Don't have an intellegent response, call someone a racist. I don't see you complaining about your Dimocrat buddy Robert 'KKK' Byrd...

 

Wacko

[alg]

Miller retired from the senate, right? Is he beyond enticing into GW's cabinet? One his several expected openings? We need more men like this in government, regardless of party.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

Democrats don't have to cater to the South, Zell. OHIO puts them IN the White House, ZEIGLER!! Doing the math means that we have a sectional split that runs deep right now... Go back to your f-ed up state and feed that stevestojan to someone who cares. If you are centrist, Kerry is William F. Buckley!!!!

[blzrul]

Typical leftist stevestojan. Don't have an intellegent response, call someone a racist. I don't see you complaining about your Dimocrat buddy Robert 'KKK' Byrd...

 

Wacko

101951[/snapback]

I said he was a remnant from the old racist (southern) Democratic party, the party of Wallace. Those people mostly bolted to the GOP when LBJ forced integration in 1964. That's a historical fact by the way, they did exist and he's one of the few still in office. Or was.

 

!@#$. :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:

[Alaska Darin]

I said he was a remnant from the old racist (southern) Democratic party, the party of Wallace.  Those people mostly bolted to the GOP when LBJ forced integration in 1964.  That's a historical fact by the way, they did exist and he's one of the few still in office.  Or was.

 

!@#$. :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:

102350[/snapback]

His response is also factual. It's amazing how angry people get when their hypocrisy is shown.

[Kelly the Dog]

Zell, Zell, Zell... I know you're old, but, un, YOUR party just won the Presdiency and picked up a few Senate seats in the process.